State v. Martre, 2020 Ohio 3067

In June 2017 Derrick Martre was indicted for felony domestic violence after his then‑girlfriend discovered sexually explicit photos on his phone.
Defense filed a motion in limine to exclude the phone evidence as irrelevant; the next day Martre entered an Alford plea to attempted domestic violence (a fifth‑degree felony).
Martre was sentenced to community control and a short jail term; his community control later was unsuccessfully terminated.
In May 2019 Martre filed a post‑sentence motion to withdraw his plea alleging a manifest injustice: the cell phone was seized and searched without a valid warrant, counsel was ineffective for not investigating the warrant, and the plea was not knowing/voluntary.
The state attached the search warrant, affidavit, and police report showing the warrant was sought May 26, 2017, and the phone was downloaded after a warrant was secured on May 27, 2017.
The trial court denied the motion; the court of appeals affirmed, finding the warrant and search proper and Martre’s other claims unsupported.

Issue	Martre's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant / seizure	Warrant was improper because phone was taken/stored before warrant issued	Warrant was obtained before the phone was searched; affidavit established probable cause and a neutral magistrate issued it	Warrant valid; search constitutional; no manifest injustice
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to investigate the search warrant	Martre offered no evidence counsel failed to investigate; presumption counsel was competent stands	Claim fails under Strickland; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice
Knowing/ voluntary plea	Plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made	Martre entered an Alford plea voluntarily; no record evidence undermines plea validity	Plea was valid; no extraordinary circumstances to permit post‑sentence withdrawal

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (standard for pleading guilty while maintaining innocence)
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (1998) (definition of "manifest injustice")
State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 (2019) (defendant bears burden to establish manifest injustice)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (ineffective‑assistance presumption and Strickland framework)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Golden, 177 Ohio App.3d 771 (2008) (bare assertions unsupported by the record cannot establish manifest injustice)